Labour Theory of Value

[Havet]

First of all, I think the LTV is valid. This does not mean that I think everyone's labor is worth exactly $10 per hour, or that mudpies sell for $10 if they take 1 hour to make, or any of that stuff. I associate the LTV with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, not Karl Marx. And I'm not going to defend Marx's version and I'll dismiss any objections based on Marx's version as a strawman.

Adam Smith:

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."

Notice he says "what every thing really costs", not "the price that everything sells for". All costs can be expressed as labor costs.

Ricardo:

"The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour."

What's being said here is basically "cost and price are different; costs are always ultimately labor costs". That ought to put Ricardo's statement that value (stated in terms of costs or disutilities) derives only from labor into the correct perspective. Prices tend toward reflecting costs because where price exceeds cost, production ceases until that condition changes. Thus, the LTV does not say that the price that something sells for is always directly and solely coming from the labor put into it, only that it's costs are.

What is not being said here is that "people only want something as badly as the labor that went into it", or that "value is tied directly to the object and has nothing to do with evaluation by individuals" or that "two people can't value the same thing differently". It is not irreconcilable with STV. they are complementary if you understand them (or at least, if you don't start off with the belief that they are incompatible and then look for validation of that hypothesis). The LTV doesn't have to "provide a means for discovering when labor should not be done at all", or "comparing the value of alternative uses for labor." As I said, it is complementary, not exclusive, to a subjective understanding of value. I don't know how I can say "they're compatible" and get an objection like "LTV can't account for X that the STV can". Apply the immortal ethic of ARFCOM: "Get Both."

And I'm going to recommend this to anyone wanting better understanding. Studies in Mutualist Political Economy (http://mutualist.org/id47.html) by Kevin Carson.

This post was taken from this original author (http://boredzhwazi.blogspot.com/2008/01/labor-theory-of-value.html)through his original consent.

[Os Cangaceiros]

First of all, I think the LTV is valid. This does not mean that I think everyone's labor is worth exactly $10 per hour, or that mudpies sell for $10 if they take 1 hour to make, or any of that stuff.

'Course, neither would Marx, as he specifically stated that the LTOV applied to utility, which would exclude the "mud pie" strawman example.

But you probably know that, as it's mentioned in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy...

[Havet]

'Course, neither would Marx, as he specifically stated that the LTOV applied to utility, which would exclude the "mud pie" strawman example.

But you probably know that, as it's mentioned in Studies in Mutualist Political Economy...

good point, but what do you actually make of the analysis?

[Hit The North]

And I'm not going to defend Marx's version and I'll dismiss any objections based on Marx's version as a strawman.



Nice to see your open minded approach to debate :rolleyes: :lol:

[Havet]

Nice to see your open minded approach to debate :rolleyes: :lol:

well the point was not to debate marx, but to debate these other points of view regarding the subject, and contributing to break this religious belief on marx that floats 'round here

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Some consideration:

- Marx acknowledged different people value different objects... differently.
- Marx didn't believe objects have a primal value.

If you're going to attack "religious fever" towards Marx, then do so. Straw is falling out of your cuffs.

[EvigLidelse]

The LTV is a theory to describe cost, not price. The cost (in labour) of making a pie and a mudpie is pretty much the same, that is why the theory seems to fail on this point. The problem is that people tend to see it as a theory on price, whereas price is an agreement between the two parties of an exchange. The experienced cost by the seller party simply cannot set the price on it's own, as other factors have to be counted in - and that is where marginalism and such theories would fall in to complement and not to replace LTV.

[trivas7]

The LTV is a theory to describe cost, not price.
I disagree. LTV is a theory of what constitutes objective value, and answers this in terms of what philosophical materialism allows.

[EvigLidelse]

LTV is a theory of what constitutes objective value[...]

I do agree, I've always had a hard time differing it from the cost principle (cost the limit of price) - but this is probably it. Thanks.

But my point still comes through, the LTV doesn't necessarily describe the perceived value of the buyer, but the one of the seller.

[trivas7]

I
But my point still comes through, the LTV doesn't necessarily describe the perceived value of the buyer, but the one of the seller.
Agreed; but remember that in Marx's world buyers and sellers can't logically be separated -- they are dialectically related.

[EvigLidelse]

Agreed; but remember that in Marx's world buyers and sellers can't logically be separated -- they are dialectically related.

I've never read Marx, so I'm not the person to remember what he's written ;)

[mikelepore]

But my point still comes through, the LTV doesn't necessarily describe the perceived value of the buyer, but the one of the seller.

It doesn't describe perceived anything. It describes what a market condition for a commodity ends up doing, where it is seen to converge, without regard to what the buyers and sellers would wish it to do.

[EvigLidelse]

It doesn't describe perceived anything. It describes what a market condition for a commodity ends up doing, where it is seen to converge, without regard to what the buyers and sellers would wish it to do.

In less cryptic terms, please?

[Kollentsky]

So, we've established that everyone agrees with the Labour Theory of Value as defined by Marx?

Hope the OP is satisfied with this conclusion.

[EvigLidelse]

So, we've established that everyone agrees with the Labour Theory of Value as defined by Marx?

Hope the OP is satisfied with this conclusion.

How did you come to this conclusion?

[Kollentsky]

Because this thread was founded upon a misunderstanding of Marx's LToV, which has been subsequently rectified, and falls within the boundaries of the LToV which the OP was originally defending.

[KC]

In less cryptic terms, please?

Marxist economics analyzes prices as they are, not as this or that party would wish them to be.

[EvigLidelse]

I've never spoken about wishes, but about perception. I'm still probably floating around in the aether of the cost principle, but what I simply am saying is that one would not want to trade that which is perceived to have been spent a lot of labour on, for something that is perceived to have been spent less labour on. The cost (in labour) limits the price, and this is what I was stuck on in my earlier posts in this thread. I did not realize that the LTV was a premise to the cost principle, not the same thing.

If I have misunderstood you once more, feel free to correct me.

[trivas7]

Marxist economics analyzes prices as they are, not as this or that party would wish them to be.
What do you mean to say by this drivel? What has "analyzing prices" to do w/ LTV?

[KC]

What do you mean to say by this drivel? What has "analyzing prices" to do w/ LTV?I was referring to price in Marxian economics, as the person I was responding to was discussing price, not value.

[mikelepore]

It doesn't describe perceived anything. It describes what a market condition for a commodity ends up doing, where it is seen to
converge, without regard to what the buyers and sellers would wish it to do.
In less cryptic terms, please?

Here's an example.

If it requires a lot more labor time to produce a car than a loaf of bread, then a car will have to have a lot more exchange value than a loaf of bread. If the exchange values of these items were not in this order, but in reverse order, then continuous production wouldn't be possible and the commodity couldn't exist. The company that sells the $15,000 car exists, and the company that sells the $2 loaf of bread exists. But where are companies that sell these commodities with their values in the reverse order? Where is the company that sells a $2 new car, and where is the company that sells a $15,000 loaf of bread? They don't exist. For the commodities to be produced and marketed continuously, their exchange values have to appear in the same order as their production costs, which is closely correlated with the total labor time incurred for all production steps.

So the law of value investigated by Marx doesn't describe how people "value" anything.

It describes something that generally ends up happening in the marketing of commodities, and people are merely observers of it.

[EvigLidelse]

Once again, I have never spoken of wish, but of perception. When speaking in terms of the cost principle, rather than the LTV, this becomes much more clear; but that is another topic, and I don't know why I brought it up here.

[mikelepore]

As of the time when Marx delivered his lecture later published as a pamphlet entitled "Wage-Labour and Capital", he was using the phrase "cost of production." Years later, when Marx delivered his lecture later published as a pamphlet entitled "Value, Price and Profit" he had a new term for it, "exchange value." Some Marxists think the VPP pamphlet was a theoretical break with WLC, but I think it was a continuity of thought and mainly a new terminology, so I go on discussing his theory in terms of "cost of production".

[KC]

As of the time when Marx delivered his lecture later published as a pamphlet entitled "Wage-Labour and Capital", he was using the phrase "cost of production." Years later, when Marx delivered his lecture later published as a pamphlet entitled "Value, Price and Profit" he had a new term for it, "exchange value." Some Marxists think the VPP pamphlet was a theoretical break with WLC, but I think it was a continuity of thought and mainly a new terminology, so I go on discussing his theory in terms of "cost of production".

This is actually not true; price and exchange-value are not the same thing. From MIA:


Exchange-value differs from “price (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#price)” in two ways: firstly, price is the actualisation of exchange-value, differing from one exchange to the next in response to a myriad of factors affecting the activity of exchange; secondly, price is the specific value-form (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/v/a.htm#value), measuring the value of the commodity against money (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/m/o.htm#money).

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The LTV is a theory to describe cost, not price. The cost (in labour) of making a pie and a mudpie is pretty much the same, that is why the theory seems to fail on this point. The problem is that people tend to see it as a theory on price, whereas price is an agreement between the two parties of an exchange. The experienced cost by the seller party simply cannot set the price on it's own, as other factors have to be counted in - and that is where marginalism and such theories would fall in to complement and not to replace LTV.

This seems more to the point. It's worth noting that Marxist most serious work Das Kapital was incomplete. He only finished Das Kapital Volume 1 which specifically deals with PRODUCTION and not necessarily with circulation, financial capital, etc. It seems in bad taste to criticize someone's theory as flawed becaues they died before they can finish it. However, it must be admitted that Marxists who run around spouting the LTV as the end-all-be-all of Marxism would do well to reread Capital.

[trivas7]

This seems more to the point. It's worth noting that Marxist most serious work Das Kapital was incomplete. He only finished Das Kapital Volume 1 which specifically deals with PRODUCTION and not necessarily with circulation, financial capital, etc. It seems in bad taste to criticize someone's theory as flawed becaues they died before they can finish it. However, it must be admitted that Marxists who run around spouting the LTV as the end-all-be-all of Marxism would do well to reread Capital.
What are you suggesting? That Marxists should abandon LTV altogether b/c Das Capital was never completed?

[Reclaimed Dasein]

What are you suggesting? That Marxists should abandon LTV altogether b/c Das Capital was never completed?
Remember how I said I agree with this?


The experienced cost by the seller party simply cannot set the price on it's own, as other factors have to be counted in - and that is where marginalism and such theories would fall in to complement and not to replace LTV.

It shouldn't be abandoned, but it also shouldn't be held as the culmination and totality of Marxist thought.

[trivas7]

Remember how I said I agree with this?

Not in this thread you don't.

[Luís Henrique]

First of all, I think the LTV is valid. This does not mean that I think everyone's labor is worth exactly $10 per hour, or that mudpies sell for $10 if they take 1 hour to make, or any of that stuff. I associate the LTV with Adam Smith and David Ricardo, not Karl Marx. And I'm not going to defend Marx's version and I'll dismiss any objections based on Marx's version as a strawman.

What are the differences between Smith/Ricardo's LTV, and Marx's LTV, if any?

Is Ricardo's "version" of the LTV really that much similar to Smith's that they can be taken as the same theory?

As far as I can tell, they would be more easily divided between "Smith's LTV" on one hand, and "Ricardo/Marx's LTV" in the other.

I would like to defend Marx's version against your own implied strawmen. Marx very clearly never thought that "everyone's labor is worth exactly $10 per hour" (or any other abstract value if it matters). Also, Marx very clearly didn't think that mudpies are worth the "labour" embodied in them; mudpies have no use value, and as such cannot be commodities - and only commodities have exchange values.

Luís Henrique

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The experienced cost by the seller party simply cannot set the price on it's own, as other factors have to be counted in - and that is where marginalism and such theories would fall in to complement and not to replace LTV.



This seems more to the point


Not in this thread you don't.

Could you please explain to me what "This seems more to the point" means to you? Since for most people it's a phrase of agreement.

[Conquer or Die]

What are you suggesting? That Marxists should abandon LTV altogether b/c Das Capital was never completed?

Yes! Marx is a primitivist who wants to destroy western tradition because he couldn't refute the proven marginal utility.

[trivas7]

Yes! Marx is a primitivist who wants to destroy western tradition because he couldn't refute the proven marginal utility.
Agreed. :thumbup1:

[mikelepore]

This is actually not true; price and exchange-value are not the same thing.

I don't know what you saying in my statement is "not true". Nowhere did I ever say that price and exchange value are the same thing. You responded to a post of mine where I said that the younger Marx more often said that the exchange value of the product is determined by the manufacturers' cost of production of the product, as we see in the pamphlet 'Wage-Labour and Capital.' Some years later, Marx switched to the explanation of exchange value in terms of socially necessary labor time.


From MIA:
Exchange-value differs from "price" in two ways: firstly, price is the actualisation of exchange-value, differing from one exchange to the next in response to a myriad of factors affecting the activity of exchange; secondly, price is the specific value-form, measuring the value of the commodity against money.

There is no inconsistency between that and what I said.

[Luís Henrique]

So, what difference is there between Smith/Ricardo LTV (supposing they are the same) and Marx's?

Luís Henrique

[JimmyJazz]

The Validity of the Labor Theory of Value

To conclude, we present three traditional proofs of the labor theory of value.

The first of these is the analytical proof, which proceeds by breaking down the price of a commodity into its constituent elements and demonstrating that if the process is extended far enough, only labor will be found.

The price of every commodity can be reduced to a certain number of components: the amortization of machinery and buildings, which we call the renewal of fixed capital; the price of raw materials and accessory products; wages; and finally, everything which is surplus value, such as profit, rent, taxes, etc.

So far as the last two components are concerned, wages and surplus value, it has already been shown that they are labor pure and simple. With regard to raw materials, most of their price is largely reducible to labor; for example, more than 60 per cent of the mining cost of coal consists of wages. If we start by breaking down the average manufacturing cost of commodities into 40% for wages, 20% surplus value, 30% for raw materials and 10% in fixed capital; and if we assume that 60% of the cost of raw materials can be reduced to labor, then we already have 78% of the total cost reduced to labor. The rest of the cost of raw materials breaks down into the cost of other raw materials – reducible in turn to 60% labor – plus the cost of amortizing machinery.

The price of machinery consists to a large degree of labor (for example, 40%) and raw materials (for example, 40% also). The share of labor in the average cost of all commodities thus passes successively to 83%, 87%, 89.5%, etc. It is obvious that the further this breakdown is carried, the more the entire cost tends to be reduced to labor, and to labor alone.

The second proof is the logical proof, and is the one presented in the beginning of Marx’s Capital. It has perplexed quite a few readers, for it is certainly not the simplest pedagogical approach to the question.

Marx poses the question in the following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are interchangeable, which means that they must have a common quality, because everything which is interchangeable is comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common are, by definition, not comparable with each other.

Let us inspect each of these commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length, density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value. Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity.

A common quality must be found in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities which is not physical is their quality of being the products of human labor, of abstract human labor.

Human labor can be thought of in two different ways. It can be considered as specific concrete labor, such as the labor of the baker, butcher, shoemaker, weaver, blacksmith, etc. But so long as it is thought of as specific concrete work, it is being viewed in its aspect of labor which produces only use values.

Under these conditions we are concerning ourselves only with the physical qualities of commodities and these are precisely the qualities which are not comparable. The only thing which commodities have in common from the viewpoint of exchanging them is that they are all produced by abstract human labor, that is to say, by producers who are related to each other on a basis of equivalence as a result of the fact that they are all producing goods for exchange. The common quality of commodities, consequently, resides in the fact that they are the products of abstract human labor and it is this which supplies the measure of their exchange value, of their exchangeability. It is, consequently, the quality of socially necessary labor in the production of commodities which determines their exchange value.

Let us immediately add that Marx’s reasoning here is both abstract and difficult and is at least subject to questioning, a point which many opponents of Marxism have seized upon and sought to use, without any marked success, however.

Is the fact that all commodities are produced by abstract human labor really the only quality which they have in common, apart from their natural qualities? There are not a few writers who thought they had discovered others. In general, however, these have always been reducible either to physical qualities or to the fact that they are products of abstract labor.

A third and final proof of the correctness of the labor theory of value is the proof by reduction to the absurd. It is, moreover, the most elegant and most “modern” of the proofs.

Imagine for a moment a society in which living human labor has completely disappeared, that is to say, a society in which all production has been 100 per cent automated. Of course, so long as we remain in the current intermediate stage, in which some labor is already completely automated, that is to say, a stage in which plants employing no workers exist alongside others in which human labor is still utilized, there is no special theoretical problem, since it is merely a question of the transfer of surplus value from one enterprise to another. It is an illustration of the law of equalization of the profit rate, which will be explored later on.

But let us imagine that this development has been pushed to its extreme and human labor has been completely eliminated from all forms of production and services. Can value continue to exist under these conditions? Can there be a society where nobody has an income but commodities continue to have a value and to be sold? Obviously such a situation would be absurd. A huge mass of products would be produced without this production creating any income, since no human being would be involved in this production. But someone would want to “sell” these products for which there were no longer any buyers!

It is obvious that the distribution of products in such a society would no longer be effected in the form of a sale of commodities and as a matter of fact selling would become all the more absurd because of the abundance produced by general automation.

Expressed another way, a society in which human labor would be totally eliminated from production, in the most general sense of the term, with services included, would be a society in which exchange value had also been eliminated. This proves the validity of the theory, for at the moment human labor disappears from production, value, too, disappears with it.

http://www.marx.org/archive/mandel/1967/intromet/ch01.htm

[trivas7]

^^ Ernest Mandel's "validation" of LTV presumes philosophical materialism, which I don't. Austrian subjectivism also subsumes LTV.

[mikelepore]

Marx poses the question in the following way. The number of commodities is very great. They are interchangeable, which means that they must have a common quality, because everything which is interchangeable is comparable and everything which is comparable must have at least one quality in common. Things which have no quality in common are, by definition, not comparable with each other.

Let us inspect each of these commodities. What qualities do they possess? First of all, they have an infinite set of natural qualities: weight, length, density, color, size, molecular nature; in short, all their natural physical, chemical and other qualities. Is there any one of the physical qualities which can be the basis for comparing them as commodities, for serving as the common measure of their exchange value? Could it be weight? Obviously not, since a pound of butter does not have the same value as a pound of gold. Is it volume or length? Examples will immediately show that it is none of these. In short, all those things which make up the natural quality of a commodity, everything which is a physical or chemical quality of this commodity, certainly determines its use value, its relative usefulness, but not its exchange value. Exchange value must consequently be abstracted from everything that consists of a natural physical quality in the commodity.

A common quality must be found in all of these commodities which is not physical. Marx’s conclusion is that the only common quality in these commodities which is not physical is their quality of being the products of human labor, of abstract human labor.

I don't see people in modern times being persuaded by that reason. Critics of Marx will say that the common quality is that they are objects of desire for the people who buy them. It's true that this is a common quality. The problem is that the common quality of being objects of desire is not quantitative, and such an answer is incapable of providing any explanatory power for where actual numbers could come from. The theory needs a common quality that can produce quantitative ratios, and such ratios must exists even if they are unknown or in principle unknowable.

[anticap]

... mudpies have no use value, and as such cannot be commodities - and only commodities have exchange values.

IOW: X can have use-value without having exchange-value, but X cannot have exchange-value without having use-value.

[anticap]

I don't see people in modern times being persuaded by that reason. Critics of Marx will say that the common quality is that they are objects of desire for the people who buy them.

Be that as it may, the subjective value of the objects of desire, whatever that value may be, is due to the producers of the objects -- whom those same modern-day people will readily identify as the antiquated trinity of labor, capital and land. The task then is simply to point out the absurdity of the latter two as claimants, which is easy once you explain reification.

[trivas7]

Be that as it may, the subjective value of the objects of desire, whatever that value may be, is due to the producers of the objects -- whom those same modern-day people will readily identify as the antiquated trinity of labor, capital and land. The task then is simply to point out the absurdity of the latter two as claimants, which is easy once you explain reification.
What you fail to see it that those objects, too, are a product of the reification of subjective desire.

[Luís Henrique]

IOW: X can have use-value without having exchange-value, but X cannot have exchange-value without having use-value.

Yes............, though X cannot also have an exchange value if it is not a product of labour (air comes to mind).

It can also be argued that in some cases the use value is merely a function of exchange value, as in the case of jewels or some very expensive cars (what's the use of a Ferrari? to show people that one can buy a Ferrari).

Luís Henrique

[anticap]

What you fail to see it that those objects, too, are a product of the reification of subjective desire.

I don't fail to see it; the modern-day people described above do. My point was that despite their failure to see it, despite the subjectivist nonsense that infects their brains, despite their rejection of common sense and the LTV, the end result is the same: laborers are due the entire value of everything that is produced.

Neither capital nor land, nor their personifications, produce anything; laborers produce everything, by laboring upon capital and land. But because capitalists and landlords control the power of the state (or, in "anarcho"-Capitalist Utopia, the power of the Private Defense Agencies), they are able to demand a tribute from the laborers.*

Even if people can't be convinced of the LTV, it is sufficient, for my purposes, to convince them of the above.

*I guess the anti-Marxists are right about Marx being wrong about historical materialism: history never even moved beyond feudalism. /snark

[trivas7]

Neither capital nor land, nor their personifications, produce anything; laborers produce everything, by laboring upon capital and land.

You don't take my meaning. It doesn't matter what labourers produce if I subjectively don't want to buy it.


But because capitalists and landlords control the power of the state (or, in "anarcho"-Capitalist Utopia, the power of the Private Defense Agencies), they are able to demand a tribute from the laborers.*
Capitalists qua capitalists, landlords qua landlords don't control the power of the state.

[anticap]

You don't take my meaning. It doesn't matter what labourers produce if I subjectively don't want to buy it.

I see. Then perhaps you missed my post just above the one you quoted:


IOW: X can have use-value without having exchange-value, but X cannot have exchange-value without having use-value.

IOW: No shit.

But when you decide what you want to buy, you ought to pay the right people for it. (Clearly, it isn't your fault that you don't; it's the fault of the system you live under.)


Capitalists qua capitalists, landlords qua landlords don't control the power of the state.

So what? Capitalists and landlords, qua wealthy elites with ill-gotten riches and undeserved status to protect, do.

[trivas7]

So what?
So the problem is the state, not wealthy elites with ill-gotten riches and undeserved status.

[anticap]

So the problem is the state, not wealthy elites with ill-gotten riches and undeserved status.

Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

But how does this relate to what we were talking about? (Warning: my eyes feature nictitating membranes, which are triggered by tangents.)

[Judicator]

"The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people."

Notice he says "what every thing really costs", not "the price that everything sells for". All costs can be expressed as labor costs.


All costs can be expressed in any arbitrary terms you want - in laborer-hours, Panera sandwiches, iPhones, barrels of oil...whatever. Also, you have to include forgone benefits of other things in the costs of acquiring something.



What's being said here is basically "cost and price are different; costs are always ultimately labor costs". That ought to put Ricardo's statement that value (stated in terms of costs or disutilities) derives only from labor into the correct perspective. Prices tend toward reflecting costs because where price exceeds cost, production ceases until that condition changes. Thus, the LTV does not say that the price that something sells for is always directly and solely coming from the labor put into it, only that it's costs are.

What is not being said here is that "people only want something as badly as the labor that went into it", or that "value is tied directly to the object and has nothing to do with evaluation by individuals" or that "two people can't value the same thing differently". It is not irreconcilable with STV. they are complementary if you understand them (or at least, if you don't start off with the belief that they are incompatible and then look for validation of that hypothesis). The LTV doesn't have to "provide a means for discovering when labor should not be done at all", or "comparing the value of alternative uses for labor." As I said, it is complementary, not exclusive, to a subjective understanding of value. I don't know how I can say "they're compatible" and get an objection like "LTV can't account for X that the STV can". Apply the immortal ethic of ARFCOM: "Get Both."


The STV predicts that value is price. If I understand it correctly the LTV predicts that value isn't always price. These seem irreconcilable.

Under the STV you look at how scarce all factors of production (labor, natural resources, capital) are, look at how much people want the product, and then you get a price where marginal costs equal marginal benefits. So, sure, they're consistent in the sense that labor is a factor in an object's value, but a lot of it comes out of other factors. The STV would reject the idea that labor is the only cost - all factors of production have relevant costs.

[Jonnydraft]

So the problem is the state, not wealthy elites with ill-gotten riches and undeserved status.

Are the two separable?

[Havet]

Are the two separable?

Nope, although if you destroy the elites but leave the state they [elites] will still keep appearing and using the state. Whereas if you destroy the state, elites are dramatically less likely to use the state (which would not exist) to gain ill-gotten riches for example.

[Jonnydraft]

Nope, although if you destroy the elites but leave the state they [elites] will still keep appearing and using the state. Whereas if you destroy the state, elites are dramatically less likely to use the state (which would not exist) to gain ill-gotten riches for example.

But if you're a revolutionary, the state is a required apparatus. I know many will contend that statement - but they'll get over it.

[Havet]

But if you're a revolutionary, the state is a required apparatus. I know many will contend that statement - but they'll get over it.

My kind of revolution will not replace the state for a "better one" but destroy it completely over time.

[Jonnydraft]

My kind of revolution will not replace the state for a "better one" but destroy it completely over time.

I'm well aware that this line of thinking exists - all I can say is: good luck with that.

[EvigLidelse]

I'm well aware that this line of thinking exists - all I can say is: good luck with that.

Ever heard about gradualistic revolution? The very first anarchists actually opposed violent revolution, discarding it as a mental shortcut that simply won't work (instead supporting gradualism).

[Jonnydraft]

Ever heard about gradualistic revolution? The very first anarchists actually opposed violent revolution, discarding it as a mental shortcut that simply won't work (instead supporting gradualism).

With regards to a violent revolution, I can agree. Beyond - there is little point in discussing the collapse of the state. If it were to happen organically, or as a result, so be it. However, to plan for, or advocate, the state's demise is in many ways contradictory.

Ideology has escaped the 21C. Through it, solidarity can be achieved. The form of governance (or lack thereof) that emerges is not for me to decide, only contribute to.

[anticap]

Under the STV you look at how scarce all factors of production (labor, natural resources, capital) are, look at how much people want the product, and then you get a price where marginal costs equal marginal benefits.

Laborers can be paid, because they are actors; natural resources ("land" for short) and capital are not actors, they are things. That's where capitalist ideologists sneak in the notion that land and capital can be paid through their supposed representatives, the landlord and the capitalist. Once you swallow that bitter pill, they offer you a spoonful of private-property doctrine to help it go down.


So, sure, they're consistent in the sense that labor is a factor in an object's value, but a lot of it comes out of other factors. The STV would reject the idea that labor is the only cost - all factors of production have relevant costs.

The value of a commodity is determined by the labor involved in producing it. Sure, a widget will have costs beyond the labor directly involved in producing it, such as widget-parts -- but those costs are likewise determined by the labor involved.